Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-15-2006 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA November 15, 2006 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: A. October 4, 2006 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already Present on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the minutes.) 5. Planning Cases A. DE2006-005 and MA2006-003: Consideration of a Preliminary Plat for the “Knollwood Place” townhouse development Applicant: Integra Homes Address: 12721 Overlook Drive, Dayton, MN 6. Other Planning Activity A. None 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. December 6, 2006 B. December 20, 2006 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session Agenda Session 1. Review Minutes: a. October 18, 2006 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion DRAFT PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting October 18, 2006 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order Chair Stevenson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. October 18, 2006. ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chair Stevenson; Commissioners Hegland, Hull, Meehlhause, Miller, Scotch, and Zwirn Absent and Excused: None Also Present: Community Development Director Jim Ericson Index to Minutes Page MI2006-001: Consideration of a Minor Subdivision at 8409 Groveland Road 2 Applicant: Tony & Cherie Hoffman Address: 8409 Groveland Road Continuation: Accessory Building Codes & Requirements Discussion 3 Chair Stevenson asked for any additional items for the agenda. No changes were proposed. 3. Approve Minutes A. September 20, 2006 MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Zwirn /Commissioner Miller, to approve the Minutes of the September 20, 2006 regular Planning Commission meetings as slightly amended. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. Mounds View Planning Commission October 18, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 2 ________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None. ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases A. MI2006-001: Consideration of a Minor Subdivision at 8409 Groveland Road Applicant: Tony & Cherie Hoffman Address: 8409 Groveland Road Community Development Director Jim Ericson summarized the application for consideration of a minor subdivision at 8409 Groveland Road. He explained the proposed subdivision is essentially a lot line adjustment shifting the common lot line between 8409 and 8413 Groveland Road five feet further south onto 8409 Groveland. Director Ericson clarified the Hoffmans own lots A and B. He pointed out lot C is no longer owned by the Hoffmans and is not affected by this subdivision request. Director Ericson explained the purpose for the request is because the Hoffmans would like to build a new home on the vacant lot and the proposed floor plan necessitates an additional five feet of space to satisfy setback requirements. Community Development Director Jim Ericson informed the Planning Commission all requirements are satisfied. He explained the two lots would be switching frontages and the only impact would be the requirement for a new five-foot drainage and utility easement. Director Ericson indicated subdivisions are usually subject to park dedication requirements; however, the Hoffmans paid this fee in 2003 as a condition of a minor subdivision approval. He explained requests such as this would not require a public hearing, as the only properties affected would be the Hoffman property. Community Development Director Ericson expressed this is a straightforward request and Staff recommends approval of the resolution. Chair Stevenson asked Community Development Director Ericson what the timeline for removal of the existing garage and whether it was required in the original approval. Community Development Director Ericson stated the garage was supposed to have been removed within a year. He reported Mr. Hoffman stated it would be torn down in November 2006 to make room for the new home. Commissioner Miller asked about the shed and whether it needed to be in the resolution. Community Development Director Ericson replied the shed would need to be removed from the survey but would stay in the resolution. He stated the resolution is correct as written. Commissioner Miller stated it looked like the majority of the shed was on parcel C. Mounds View Planning Commission October 18, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 3 ________________________________________________________________________ Community Development Director Ericson reiterated the shed is no longer there. He explained the resolution stated it is to be taken off the survey, as it is no longer there. Commissioner Zwirn asked if the five-foot easement would be adjusted along with the lot line. Community Development Director Ericson that was correct. Chair Stevenson asked if the Commissioners felt there should be other changes. No additional changes were voiced. Commissioner Zwirn asked when the applicant planned to begin building the new home. Mrs. Cherie Hoffman, 8409 Groveland Road, replied next spring. MOTION/SECOND: Commissioner Hegland/Commissioner Meehlhause, to approve Resolution 852-06, a resolution approving a minor subdivision between 8409 and 8413 Groveland Road, with stipulations. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 6. Other Planning Activity A. Continuation Accessory Building Codes and Requirements Discussion. Community Development Director Ericson stated this topic is a continuation of a discussion started at the last Planning Commission meeting on building codes and requirements for accessory buildings. He stated a number of concerns were expressed from one neighborhood asking the Commission to review the code to consider changes or if the code sufficient as is. Community Development Director Ericson reported the present requirements have been in place for four years. He stated since 2000 only 14 Conditional Use Permits had been approved for over size accessory buildings. Director Ericson stated most accessory buildings constructed in Mounds View are under the 952 square feet. Community Development Director Ericson referred to the codes addressing accessory buildings, attached in the Planning Commission packets. He reviewed the regulations for the Commission. Community Development Director Ericson stated in recognition that people have more cars, RVs and boats, both the City Council and the Planning Commission feel it is better to have these items inside a garage or accessory building rather than outside. He informed the Commissioners if they require additional information, he would provide it. Mounds View Planning Commission October 18, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 4 ________________________________________________________________________ Community Development Director Ericson reviewed the three questions, which were: is there a need to re-examine the allowances and perhaps adopt more stringent controls regarding the size, height and number of such accessory buildings; if so, should the City Council establish a committee of residents, appointed and elected individuals to determine the most appropriate changes; and should the City adopt design guidelines for all accessory buildings rather than just those in excess of 952 square feet. Community Development Director Ericson stated Staff is hopeful some of the questions could be addressed via a recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Hegland asked Community Development Director Ericson to clarify the complaints received by the City Council. Community Development Director Ericson replied the concerns expressed to him were from one area and neighborhood in Mounds View. Commissioner Miller asked what could be considered when discussing design guidelines. Community Development Director Ericson replied the only current guidelines are that garages over 952 square feet match the basic design of the house. He stated it was up to the Planning Commission whether it wanted to be more stringent or apply this requirement to accessory buildings less than 952 square feet. Chair Stevenson asked Community Development Director Ericson to read the requirements for accessory buildings. Community Development Director Ericson stated the specific requirement is that the accessory building have a weather resistant treated or finished exterior; it shall not be constructed of tubular metal, canvas, particleboard, plywood, or other similar materials. He continued stating that the accessory building shall be designed and maintained to provide a uniform appearance with the dwelling. Chair Stevenson asked the Planning Commission to look at Community Development Director Ericson’s questions. He asked if any Commissioner felt the Commission should recommend a task force. Commissioner Scotch replied Mounds View is very liberal compared to other communities regarding the amount of square footage allowed. She stated it never hurts for it to go before the City Council if they have issues. She stated it is something the Planning Commission should keep eye on. Community Development Director Ericson indicated one of the issues expressed by Council members was the height of the accessory building or garage in relationship to the house. Mounds View Planning Commission October 18, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 5 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson asked Community Development Director Ericson to explain the 15-foot height limitation in the code. Community Development Director Ericson explained the height is measured from the top of the side wall to the midpoint of the truss, which does allow the garage to exceed 15 feet to the peak. He stated the intent was to allow for matching the roof pitch of the home and carry it to the garage. Chair Stevenson asked how many detached garages in Mounds View are higher than the house. Community Development Director Ericson replied there might be a dozen or more but that it is not commonplace. Commissioner Hegland stated the ones he has seen try to match the pitch on the house roof. He stated many houses in Mounds View have a steep roof pitch. Chair Stevenson asked if limiting the height of detached garages to the height of house would be a limiting factor or problematic. Community Development Director Ericson replied it could be a problem if the home is a rambler, as it might not give taller vehicles suitable clearance. He stated many of the older homes with the higher peaks are generally the ones requesting the garages. Chair Stevenson asked if the problem is when the garage is higher than the house. Commissioner Scotch remarked she thinks it is the size more than the height. She clarified the unknown is often what the accessory building would be used for. She indicated many of the garages have been for sizes larger than the house. Commissioner Hegland stated there have not been many complaints nor has the Planning Commission granted many variances. He stated he does not see a problem. Chair Stevenson stated most of the complaints have been that the structure of the accessory building looks out of place from the house. Community Development Director Ericson reiterated there have not been very many complaints outside from the one neighborhood. Commissioner Scotch commented she did not think there was a problem. Commissioner Hegland remarked the current code is in line with adjoining communities and it serves the needs of Mounds View. He stated Mounds View has an established set of codes that are simple to enforce and meet the needs of the community. Commissioner Hegland stated he is afraid the more the Planning Commission restricts people, the more difficult it becomes for residents to improve their property. Mounds View Planning Commission October 18, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 6 ________________________________________________________________________ Chair Stevenson stated the Commission knows there are too many lots in Mounds View with too many accessory buildings. Commissioner Scotch asked what the size of the accessory building the resident was referring to at the previous meeting. Community Development Director Ericson replied the accessory building was about 980 square feet. He told the Commission he is not recommending it delve into something that does not need to be changed. He stated the recommendation to the Council could be that the Commission is happy with the code the way it is and not suggesting a task force be established to fix something that is not broken. Commissioner Miller stated some years ago a driveway could not go to an accessory building. Community Development Director Ericson replied that in 2002 a change was made stating an offshoot of the primary driveway could continue to the back garage. He mentioned the City did not have an impervious surface maximum or ratio beyond which one could not exceed other than the maximum width of a driveway. Commissioner Zwirn asked if gazebos were counted as accessory buildings. Community Development Director Ericson stated it is the storage component of a building that is counted; a gazebo or hot tub enclosure did not count. Chair Stevenson asked what the size of the largest building applied for has been. Community Development Director Ericson replied he thought is was for about 1600 square feet. He stated for the most part they are in the 1100 to 1200 square foot range. Chair Stevenson stated the detached structure should be below 952 as most accessory buildings used for vehicles are less than 952. He stated that perhaps the Planning Commission is a bit too generous in not requiring the accessory buildings be uniform appearance with the house. Commissioner Hegland stated a two-car garage is just over 400, anything under that is probably not a garage. Chair Stevenson state he would not be opposed to recommending design guidelines for all accessory buildings in excess of 400 square feet. Commissioner Meehlhause asked if Staff receives any requests for single car garages. Community Development Director Ericson replied they did not. Mounds View Planning Commission October 18, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 7 ________________________________________________________________________ Commissioner Zwirn emphasized he had three serious reservations dictating how people should build. He stated the code is fine the way it is. He stated he would like to see more flexibility relative to the lot size since they are paying taxes on the lots. He stated young people are buying up houses that meet their needs now with plans to expand to meet their needs in the future. Commissioner Miller asked if that meant the accessory building could be larger than the house. Commissioner Zwirn replied it could be with the older homes, as residents build larger garages for storage with the intent of building a larger home later. Commissioner Scotch stated the code allows up to 1800 square feet. Chair Stevenson commented a limit of 20 percent of rear yard could be covered with accessory buildings. He stated he is inclined to agree as far as the appearance; there are too many garages less than 952 square feet that look so out of place and the City has no control over what they look like. Commissioner Hull stated if it is not broke do not fix it. He commented the few complaints do not warrant changes. Chair Stevenson asked the Commissioners to consider expanding the reach of the current design guidelines so that it does not negatively affect the neighborhood. He would like the code to read exactly as it currently does, the only change being to apply to all accessory buildings exceeding 400 square feet. MOTION/SECOND: Chair Stevenson /Commissioner Miller to recommend changing the code to reflect design guidelines for any accessory building in excess of 400 square feet such that they must be in uniform appearance with the dwelling unit. Commissioner Hegland asked to add to the motion that the other suggestions brought forward, such as establishing a citizen task force, were deemed unnecessary and the rest of code to remain unchanged. Ayes – 6 Nays – 1 (Zwirn) Motion carried. Chair Stevenson stated this would be presented to the City Council. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meeting: A. November 1, 2006. B. November 15, 2006. ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session Mounds View Planning Commission October 18, 2006 Regular Meeting Page 8 ________________________________________________________________________ There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Dianna Wise TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No:5A Meeting Date: November 15, 2006 Type of Business: Action City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Review and Consideration of a Preliminary Plat for the proposed “Knollwood Place” Townhouse Development; Planning Cases DE2006-005 and MA2006-003 Introduction: Integra Homes has submitted a preliminary plat for a 19-unit townhouse development at 2901 and 2925 County Road 10 and the west half of 8060 Groveland Road. This is a two part planning request: a Development Review and a Major Subdivision, since the three individual properties will be combined and platted for the townhomes. Background: The City preliminarily approved Integra Home’s request for a rezoning of their three lots to R-3, Medium Density Residential, holding a first reading of the rezoning ordinance in July 2006. The second and final reading of the ordinance will be done after the site plans final plat have been approved. The combined parcels equal approximately three acres with street frontage and access only onto County Road 10. The project area is completely surrounded by single family residential homes, although the property directly to the southeast is also a business, and the house directly to the northwest is used as higher density residential and also zoned R-3. The plans submitted are consistent with what was shown to the Planning Commission and City Council in July. Development Review Discussion: Chapter 1006 of the Mounds View City Code requires that any new development project larger than one or two family dwelling units must obtain approval of a development review. The purpose of a development review is to allow the Planning Commission to evaluate proposed development in terms of its consistency with City Codes and other requirements and to ascertain and mitigate any potential impacts to the adjoining properties and the community as a whole. The Planning Commission makes a recommendation to the City Council, which then acts upon the request. Parking: The parking requirements for a townhouse use are three stalls per unit, two of which shall be garage spaces. The applicant is proposing to build units with two car garages and the driveways will have space for two cars. There are also nine additional spaces for guest parking on the site. Setbacks: The proposed development meets the required building setbacks of 30 feet for the front yard, 20 feet for side yards, and 40 feet for the rear. All parking areas meet the required five foot setbacks. Integra Homes Report November 15, 2006 Page 2 Access and fire prevention: There is only one access in and out of the development, which is onto County Road 10. The roads within the development are private roads named Knollwood Court and Knollwood Way, and will be privately maintained. The 22 feet and 25 feet road widths are acceptable to the Fire Marshall, and four fire hydrants will be located throughout the site. Although because fire access completely around a few of the buildings is limited, sprinkler systems will be required in buildings 2,3 and 5, Building Design and Materials: The plans indicate that the units will be two-story with tuck-under two car garages. The builder has not yet finalized the floor plans, but the interior finished square footage would be at least 1800 square feet per unit. The building elevations show a mix of siding styles with stone and/or brick accents on the exterior of the buildings. Snow Storage: There is limited space on the site in which snow may be plowed and piled in the winter. If the plowed snow reduces parking on the site or detracts from the general appearance of the site, the property owner will be responsible for off-site snow removal. Landscaping Plan: This site is mostly tree covered, but will be cleared for grading and construction. The City Forester has walked the property and determined that there were no trees with significant value worth saving. The Forester has reviewed the landscape plan, and is generally satisfied with what is proposed. The plan includes vegetation around the entire site, along with a six-foot privacy fence along part of the west side of the property in order to offer some additional screening for the neighboring home. The entire site will be sodded and landscaped after construction is completed. The following species have been proposed for the site, although the City Forester has recommended some plant changes: • Frontyard Linden • Black Hills Spruce • Scotch Pine • Autumn Brilliance Serviceberry • Prairiefire Crab • Miss Kim Lilac • Green Mountain Maple • River Birch • Autumn Purple Ash • Quaking Aspen • Swamp White Oak • Japanese Tree Lilac Signage: According to Chapter 1008 of the City Code, this development is permitted a maximum 32 square feet of ground monument signage (excluding the sign base) plus an additional 64 square feet of building mounted signage. Staff will review all signage permits to ensure consistency with the City Code relating to signage. Lighting: Since the plan shows only one streetlight in the middle of the street circle, a lighting plan will not be required. The applicant has been informed of the City’s minimum requirements regarding glare, light spillage and foot-candle readings. Integra Homes Report November 15, 2006 Page 3 Stormwater Management: The entire site will be graded during construction with three infiltration basins being installed; two along the front of the site, and one north of building three. The applicant plans to tie into the storm sewer as shown on the grading, erosion and sediment control plans. The runoff from the entire site will flow into the various storm sewers, which ultimately flow to the infiltration basins. The Public Works Department is currently reviewing the grading and utility plans. Trails: For all new development along County Road 10, the City requires the property owner to contribute funds for the future trail system. The plans show the planned future trail section along County Road 10. This development area has 278 feet of County Road 10 frontage with a contribution amount to be determined. Public Notice: The Planning Commission meeting is not a published public hearing, but staff did send a letter about the project moving forward with site plans and information about tonight’s meeting to all property owners within 350 feet of the property. Development Review Summary: With the new zoning change, the proposed medium density residential use on these parcels would be consistent with the City’s Zoning Code and Comp Plan, and would bring new development and tax base to the site. The traffic impact to the area may not be overly excessive from 19 new residential units, especially since the new additional traffic will only be on County Road 10. A development agreement will need to be executed with the applicant to ensure all of the specific requirements and conditions of development are satisfied and adhered to. Major Subdivision Discussion: Integra Homes has submitted an application for a major subdivision of parcels abutting the north side of County Road 10; 2901 and 2925 County Road 10, and the west half of 8060 Groveland Road. The proposed 3.07 acre subdivision would create 19 townhome lots and one outlot from the existing three lots, all of which are owned by Integra Homes. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map designates the block on the north side of County Road 10, between Spring Lake Road and Groveland Road as Mixed Use Planned Unit Development, intending for a combination of housing and commercial uses. The proposed development would be consistent with that designation and also with the residential goals and policies as articulated in the Land Use section of the Comprehensive Plan. Local Water Management Plan: Also known as the City’s Surface Water Management Plan, this planning document guides the City in regards to drainage and storm water management. The development area is located in two watersheds; AA-5 and SL-1. The minimum recommended building elevation for the AA-5 sub- watershed is 904.0 feet, while the SL-1 sub-watershed does not have a recommended building elevation. The garage floor elevations will be at 912.0 to 913.0, well above the minimum. Public Works is still reviewing the plans. Integra Homes Report November 15, 2006 Page 4 Drainage Plan: The grading plan illustrates in detail the grading, drainage and erosion control of the development. Because the street will have curb and gutter, there are stormsewer catch basins that would accept all runoff from streets and driveways, and whatever stormwater that does not infiltrate into the ground, piping the runoff to the infiltration basins on the site. All of the runoff generated from the development will be contained within the site. Park Dedication Requirements: The Subdivision Code indicates that any subdivision of land is subject to a park dedication fee. The dedication imposed is intended to mitigate public costs to the parks system associated with land development. The fee shall be reasonable and based on the extent of the development. Due to the increased intensity of the new development by adding 19 new residential units, the recommended fee amount would be equal to 10% of the market value of the land. To establish the market value, staff uses Ramsey County assessed land values as the basis for dedication computation. In this case, the value for Integra Homes’ properties was determined by the per square foot land value of a comparable R-3 zoned property at 2935 County Road 10. The development area comprises 131,136 square feet (3.07 acres) with a per square foot value of $4.17. The 2006 total land value would be $546,837. The dedication amount then would be $54,683. This amount has been communicated to the developer. Section 1204.02, Subd. 6 of the Mounds View City Code allows the applicant the right to appeal the dedication fee. Utilities: All utilities on the site would need to be installed underground, per Section 1203.10. Water and sanitary sewer lines are already present in the right of way. The plans show the storm sewer piping that would be constructed on the site, along with four fire hydrants. The utilities and street would be installed and paid for by the developer. Wetlands: MFRA Engineers have determined that there are no wetlands on the property and have submitted this information to Rice Creek Watershed District. The applicant will be responsible for receiving approval from RCWD for this development. Easements: The easements on site will be dedicated by plat. All areas within the development that are not a building are platted as “Outlot A”, which are designed to be access, drainage and utility easements. Each residential unit will be platted as an individual lot. Major Subdivision Summary: A current title commitment is still needed from the property owner, and the plat will go through a legal review by the City Attorney. The park dedication fees and trail contribution amount will be required before the City signs the final plat for recording with Ramsey County. This major subdivision request meets City Code requirements. Integra Homes Report November 15, 2006 Page 5 Recommendation: After taking testimony from staff and the applicant, and any public comments, the Commission may take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Approve the Preliminary Plat as requested. To move forward with this option, the Commission should direct staff to draft a resolution of approval with findings of fact appropriate to support the approval. 2. Deny the requested development review and major subdivision. The Commission should direct staff to draft a resolution of denial with findings appropriate to support the denial. 3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Attachments: 1. Zoning Map 2. Aerial View 3. Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map 4. Preliminary Plat 5. Site Plans Zoning Map * Properties not indicated with a designation are zoned R-1, Single Family Residential Aerial View S p r I n g L a k e R d G r o v e l a n d R d Comp Plan Future Land Use Map